Trump administration raids Polymer80 - US Government Laws & News (2A ONLY) - Long Island Firearms

Jump to content


Welcome to Long Island Firearms, Long Island's premier source for news and education!

Welcome to Long Island Firearms, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of Long Island Firearms by signing in or creating an account. You also have the ability to login with your facebook or twitter account. See the icons in the upper right hand corner.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here
Get the latest facts on the new NY SAFE gun laws that effect you!

Photo

Trump administration raids Polymer80


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 14 2020 - 04:10 PM

So much for Trump being pro 2A, he went way beyond Obama while president

 

https://www.wsj.com/...nts-11607670296

 

 

 

Banned bumpstocks and ordered their surrender

 

supported red flag laws

 

supported eliminating due process for gunowners

 

nominates anti gun ATF director

 

banned honey badger firearms 

 

Signed fix NICS

 

now he raids polymer80 

 

 

when do gunowners and conservatives start holding him accountable?

 

 


  • BogDrakonov likes this

# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#2 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 7319 posts

Posted December 14 2020 - 04:23 PM

I have learn that the "Trump administration" does NOT have control over the DOJ (FBI, ATF, etc.).


  • NRATC53, iGreg and mrprovy like this

#3 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 14 2020 - 04:41 PM

I have learn that the "Trump administration" does NOT have control over the DOJ (FBI, ATF, etc.).

 

sorry, but trump doesn’t get a pass. Gun groups like the GOA warned us about trumps nomination picks for the ATF

 

if Obama did the same thing, no gunowners would give him a pass

 

Trump could write a simple executive order to stop these actions. The fact he doesn’t speaks volumes


  • BogDrakonov likes this

#4 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 7319 posts

Posted December 14 2020 - 04:53 PM

sorry, but trump doesn’t get a pass. Gun groups like the GOA warned us about trumps nomination picks for the ATF
 
if Obama did the same thing, no gunowners would give him a pass
 
Trump could write a simple executive order to stop these actions. The fact he doesn’t speaks volumes


Whether you want to give him a "pass" is up to you but after seeing what has occurred (or not occurred) over the last four years it is clear to me that these are rogue agencies. Clinton should have been prosecuted, the Russian collusion fiasco should have been stopped in its tracks, there should have been no Mueller investigation and the known corruption of Dominion Voting Systems should have barred them from being use in our elections. I can go on but you get the point.
  • iGreg, mrprovy and Lou G like this

#5 mvphilly

mvphilly

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 1920 posts

Posted December 14 2020 - 05:01 PM

So much for Trump being pro 2A, he went way beyond Obama while president

 

https://www.wsj.com/...nts-11607670296

 

 

 

Banned bumpstocks and ordered their surrender

 

supported red flag laws

 

supported eliminating due process for gunowners

 

nominates anti gun ATF director

 

banned honey badger firearms 

 

Signed fix NICS

 

now he raids polymer80 

 

 

when do gunowners and conservatives start holding him accountable?

Well start thinking of a fair price for your guns when you have to surrender them  and save your money for the gun tax under harris.


  • iGreg and Lou G like this

#6 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 14 2020 - 09:53 PM

Well start thinking of a fair price for your guns when you have to surrender them  and save your money for the gun tax under harris.

That doesn’t justify trumps actions....he shouldn’t get a pass because he has an R next to his name



#7 grifhunter

grifhunter

    Sifting Through the Ruins

  • Club LIF Member
  • 7945 posts
  • LocationTraffic congestion Exits 43-49

Posted December 15 2020 - 12:57 AM

That doesn’t justify trumps actions....he shouldn’t get a pass because he has an R next to his name

So, then,  we shouldn't vote for him now?   


  • Ancap likes this

#8 packetloss

packetloss

    Respected Gunowner

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 287 posts
  • LocationNassau

Posted December 15 2020 - 06:14 AM

So, then,  we shouldn't vote for him now?   

 

What he means is if you voted for him for his supposed 2A support, you were duped.


  • Ancap and gzblack2 like this

#9 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 15 2020 - 07:27 AM

What he means is if you voted for him for his supposed 2A support, you were duped.

^^^ this!



#10 covertjy

covertjy

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 4048 posts
  • LocationThe Free World

Posted December 15 2020 - 07:30 AM

Forward my calls to Scandinavia for the next 4 years.  The USA will be miserable under Biden.

 

 

17428.jpeg



#11 Tom Mac

Tom Mac

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 1396 posts
  • LocationLI, NY

Posted December 15 2020 - 08:33 AM

well finland isn't as good as NY

 

go get a gun there

 

The ownership and use of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 1998. A license is always needed for possession of a firearm and all firearms are registered. Firearms may only be carried while they are being used for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting, shooting at the range). When transporting a firearm to or from such activity, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in a case or pouch. The owner of a firearm is responsible for making sure that firearms and ammunition do not end up in unauthorized hands. The exact requirements regarding storage of firearms depends on their type and quantity.[11]



#12 Wowzer

Wowzer

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 742 posts
  • LocationNassau county

Posted December 15 2020 - 10:17 AM

It seems suspect that they are doing this in the lsat days of trumps admin. But it seems that the ATF really has gone rogue.
  • mrprovy likes this

#13 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 15 2020 - 11:53 AM

Forward my calls to Scandinavia for the next 4 years.  The USA will be miserable under Biden.

 

 

17428.jpeg

 

the chart is bogus, because they actually have socialist programs as a determination of human happiness. A complete oxymoron 



#14 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 7319 posts

Posted December 15 2020 - 05:43 PM

What he means is if you voted for him for his supposed 2A support, you were duped.


I think the "you were duped" might be a little extreme. The situation with the 2nd Amendment is dynamic. You're always going to have the push-pull given changes in the legislatures, judicial and executive branches of government on the state and federal level. Add to that dynamic situation current events.

While you can disagree with Trump on some aspects of how he handled 2nd Amendment issues he didn't give away the farm. He appointed three conservative Supreme Court justices. He support the NRA and of course they've had their issues. For the most part his speaking on the 2nd Amendment has been positive.

Anyone that thought Trump was going to be elected and we were instantly going to have full carry rights in NYS was fooling themselves. So I think the "duped" comment expresses totally unrealistic expectations on what the President could do and how much worse it could have been had Hillary been elected.
  • iGreg, mrprovy and ProGodProGunProLife like this

#15 mvphilly

mvphilly

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 1920 posts

Posted December 15 2020 - 06:34 PM

That doesn’t justify trumps actions....he shouldn’t get a pass because he has an R next to his name

I didnt say a pass but he doesnt want confiscation disguised as "buy back" he doesnt want a national gun registry.He doesnt want a tax on guns you own. You can please some of the people some of the time but all of the people none of the time.He threw the anti gunners a bone to keep them at bay with the bump stock ban.


  • iGreg likes this

#16 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 16 2020 - 07:26 AM

I think the "you were duped" might be a little extreme. The situation with the 2nd Amendment is dynamic. You're always going to have the push-pull given changes in the legislatures, judicial and executive branches of government on the state and federal level. Add to that dynamic situation current events.

While you can disagree with Trump on some aspects of how he handled 2nd Amendment issues he didn't give away the farm. He appointed three conservative Supreme Court justices. He support the NRA and of course they've had their issues. For the most part his speaking on the 2nd Amendment has been positive.

Anyone that thought Trump was going to be elected and we were instantly going to have full carry rights in NYS was fooling themselves. So I think the "duped" comment expresses totally unrealistic expectations on what the President could do and how much worse it could have been had Hillary been elected.

Two of those three judges already voted with liberals and one believes that guns not in “common use” could possibly be banned. Only leaving Amy Barret who has a decent record in the past but still to be seen on the high courts

 

there is no push pull when it comes to guns. It only takes one piece of legislation to render the 2nd amendment useless

 

the republicans had full power and they squandered it

 

Trump gets rid of administration officials quickly who speak against him. Even now with Barr....why isn’t he doing the same with Regina at the ATF?  It’s not like he doesn’t know. The GOA has brought it to his attention 

 

stop giving trump a pass, we never gave Obama one



#17 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 16 2020 - 07:27 AM

I didnt say a pass but he doesnt want confiscation disguised as "buy back" he doesnt want a national gun registry.He doesnt want a tax on guns you own. You can please some of the people some of the time but all of the people none of the time.He threw the anti gunners a bone to keep them at bay with the bump stock ban.

Ane gave no bone to gunowners, even when the republicans had control 

 

we didn’t give Obama a pass, trump shouldn’t get one either



#18 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 7319 posts

Posted December 16 2020 - 12:13 PM

Two of those three judges already voted with liberals and one believes that guns not in “common use” could possibly be banned. Only leaving Amy Barret who has a decent record in the past but still to be seen on the high courts
 
there is no push pull when it comes to guns. It only takes one piece of legislation to render the 2nd amendment useless
 
the republicans had full power and they squandered it
 
Trump gets rid of administration officials quickly who speak against him. Even now with Barr....why isn’t he doing the same with Regina at the ATF?  It’s not like he doesn’t know. The GOA has brought it to his attention 
 
stop giving trump a pass, we never gave Obama one


If you think the judges appointed by Trump are suppose to vote in lock step on every legal issue you're sorely mistaken. While their overall judicial philosophy may be the same that doesn't mean they see eye to eye on every issue. Would I have like to had them vote to hear the Texas case as Thomas and Alito did? Of course, but I do understand their argument that Texas doesn't have standing to question how other states run their elections. I also agree with the idea that the legislators in the states the compliant was directed at should be the ones dealing with those issues.

Trump's issues with Barr have much more to do with who speaks against him although that is probably part of the issue. The bigger issue is Barr shouldn't have said anything regarding what evidence does or doesn't exist. At this point he should know better regarding how the media can spin a statement. But an even bigger issue are the frustrations with the delays in to a conclusion on the Durham investigation. A report was suppose to come out before summer, then during the summer, then in the fall, then before the election and now we're in December and no report. No heads have rolled as a result of the signing off on phony applications for FISA warrants, leaking of classified information and a host of other crimes committed by members of the Obama administration. And don't get me started on the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's total disregarding for national security.

#19 Ancap

Ancap

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 897 posts

Posted December 16 2020 - 04:37 PM

If you think the judges appointed by Trump are suppose to vote in lock step on every legal issue you're sorely mistaken. While their overall judicial philosophy may be the same that doesn't mean they see eye to eye on every issue. Would I have like to had them vote to hear the Texas case as Thomas and Alito did? Of course, but I do understand their argument that Texas doesn't have standing to question how other states run their elections. I also agree with the idea that the legislators in the states the compliant was directed at should be the ones dealing with those issues.

Trump's issues with Barr have much more to do with who speaks against him although that is probably part of the issue. The bigger issue is Barr shouldn't have said anything regarding what evidence does or doesn't exist. At this point he should know better regarding how the media can spin a statement. But an even bigger issue are the frustrations with the delays in to a conclusion on the Durham investigation. A report was suppose to come out before summer, then during the summer, then in the fall, then before the election and now we're in December and no report. No heads have rolled as a result of the signing off on phony applications for FISA warrants, leaking of classified information and a host of other crimes committed by members of the Obama administration. And don't get me started on the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's total disregarding for national security.

If you think the Supreme Court is going to defend the constitution your sorely mistaken as well. In its 200 year history, with thousands of unconstitutional federal laws on the books. The Supreme Court declared less then 180 unconstitutional and most of them were only partially stricken. Even the founders realized the Supreme Court failed. 
 

Trump is only looking out for his own interest. After all he extended many of the provisions of the patriot act. Even criticizing the most constitutional congressmen in congress because they where against it.  The hypocrisy is real



#20 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 7319 posts

Posted December 16 2020 - 05:10 PM

If you think the Supreme Court is going to defend the constitution your sorely mistaken as well. In its 200 year history, with thousands of unconstitutional federal laws on the books. The Supreme Court declared less then 180 unconstitutional and most of them were only partially stricken. Even the founders realized the Supreme Court failed. 
 
Trump is only looking out for his own interest. After all he extended many of the provisions of the patriot act. Even criticizing the most constitutional congressmen in congress because they where against it.  The hypocrisy is real


Your "defend the Constitution" is a pretty broad statement. Do I expect them to defend the Constitution based on my understanding of the Constitution in every circumstance? I think to do so would be a little naive. While we on the forum talk about 2nd Amendment rights my guess is there are 101 different options on just what those rights entail. Even among the so-called conservative members of the court you get a split of opinions.

As there been judicial creep over the last two hundred years? Absolutely, just as there has been moral/social creep in our society as a whole. Every generation has to keep fighting to prevent, slow it down and if possible reverse it.

So I understand your compliant but I think the phrase "defend the Constitution" is too broad a statement and ultimately non-productive. These issues have to be attacked issue by issue (targeted) versus a shotgun approach that gets us nowhere.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users